Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #1

[krkrjx]

I now have a mental image of Martinez practicing his squats that will.not.go.away.

 

[janx]

:seeya: Hi janx ! I hope we get a ruling on the cameras soon !

JMO but I truly believe that JSS will grant JA her wish for cameras !

It's going to be a riot watching JA fall flat on her butt !

:moo:

Local media requested the cameras, I believe. And the citizens of AZ certainly should have the right to see what's going on, so their case is compelling. :seeya:

 

[MeeBee]

I totally agree.

And I dont mean to keep harping on this judge but why in the heck was there such a long delay before we even got started again. Here it is almost September. I saw no reason to have such a long delay from when the trial ended to this re-sentencing phase beginning. Surely some things could have gotten shifted on peoples schedules to fit this in sooner. Was it not important enough to try to get it started again.

It was really unavoidable. They were ready to go in May but Juan had another DP case (closing arguments of penalty phase right now!) that had been waiting longer so took priority. He offered to hop off one case so the other could go on but his supervisor said no way.

 

[rose222]

I totally agree !

:thinking: Hmmm ... maybe into 2016 :gaah:

:seeya:

I totally agree.

And I dont mean to keep harping on this judge but why in the heck was there such a long delay before we even got started again. Here it is almost September. I saw no reason to have such a long delay from when the trial ended to this re-sentencing phase beginning. Surely some things could have gotten shifted on peoples schedules to fit this in sooner. Was it not important enough to try to get it started again.

Why did the Judge get so emotional when the jury was unable to reach a verdict? We saw Arias in tears (of relief) but why did the Judge get all teary-eyed? I remember Judge Perry being absolutely poker-faced when/after the verdict was read. Was Judge Stephens upset?

 

[krkrjx]

deleted--info posted earlier by MeeBee

 

[Tuba]

Websleuth remembered that Nurmi wanted to mitigate with a mental illness diagnosis and the convict refused. He had informed Arias that she had no statutory factors and she repeated his statement in open court. In the alternative, she could resort to matters of character or bearing on her record and she did that in her allocution. Nurmi knew premeditation had been proven. Therefore, assertions Travis Alexander had induced her to slaughter him or that she would not have acted except for being coerced or provoked, possibly under duress, fail. She planned his murder in advance, period full stop.

Arias seems to resist Nurmi's conclusive assessment. He is a practiced attorney and she is a convict thinking and speaking for herself. As discussed at length, she is devoid of respect for others. Where is her conceit and that disdain, driving her? From what little we are allowed to see of her mitigation, it looks like a place called Folly.

 

[janx]

I totally agree.

And I dont mean to keep harping on this judge but why in the heck was there such a long delay before we even got started again. Here it is almost September. I saw no reason to have such a long delay from when the trial ended to this re-sentencing phase beginning. Surely some things could have gotten shifted on peoples schedules to fit this in sooner. Was it not important enough to try to get it started again.

To tell you the truth, I don't know that this is unusual. This is the first time I followed a trial closely, but it seems to me that if we look at the Hulsey trial, for instance...these cases get drawn out. Someone mentioned earlier (AZlawyer maybe?) that it is a criminal defense attorney's job to draw out a trial, and we could certainly see that in Nurmi's behavior even while the trial was going on!

This judge has had to navigate a fine line between avoiding appeals and getting this thing done. She is probably a lot sicker of the delays than we are. I'm surprised she hasn't lost her temper. I understand your frustration though. It must be hell for the Alexanders.

 

[krkrjx]

There will be little actual mitigation, IMO. There will be much continuation of blaming the victim. It matters not that it was never true--a juror or two believed the possibility in the guilt phase and that is good enough for the killer. She will try many things much of it not acceptable to this phase. Will the judge allow her to go off unbridled? It remains to be seen, but we may know the answer to that as soon as jury selection.

 

[MeeBee]

I'm just not so sure that none of this will make into court, after reading about other cases, court decisions and what has been entered & used as mitigation. Hopefully not, but just thought it might be worth mentioning so that we're not completely taken by surprise if JSS allows some of it. Of course JM will get a chance to rebut what she is allowed to present and impeach witnesses, but since this jury will not have heard her in the other phases IMO it is a possibility that there are mitigators she could argue that do not have to do with whether she did it (not allowed), but rather the circumstances (allowed).

Yes, the abuse is part of her mitigation and getting people to testify to it (though it's untrue and she is essentially asking people to commit perjury for her, I don't think that will go over...her sister is very supportive of her but lying on the stand is another ball game...she doesn't understand not everyone sees lying in the same brazen sociopath way she does) will be allowed. But I do agree in that there are aspects of the guilt phase that she will probably try to argue and re-introduce again and that she will be surprised in what she can and cannot present in this phase. This is not a do-over. I also think that she does not realize how some of the stuff she is presenting will come off to a jury, coming from a convicted murderer. I think if she calls the Hughes' and berates them into trying to agree with the abuse and tries to go after other people it'll just look like a self serving murderer trying to coerce and bully witnesses rather than a lawyer arguing their case.

Murderers representing themselves has never gone well, because they are not lawyers. I saw a lawyer on YouTube talking about how intelligent Jodi is and how she ran the courtroom last time and had her way with Juan Martinez and people will be surprised how well she does. I was surprised to see this coming from another lawyer, another prosecutor no less. Usually layers understand and firmly believe that, even if defendants CAN defend themselves, they shouldn't. They need a lawyers to argue for them. Juan may get bogged down in minutae sometimes but he's a good lawyer. And while Jodi was able to get under his skin, in the end he won that battle handily by exposing her lies, easily. I can't believe that this guy thinks that he a seasoned and tested and very successful attorney, who's come up against some good lawyers himself, will meet his match in Jodi Arias. I'm sure she's very intelligent but she's no lawyer and she will let her narcissistic belief that she can do anything get in the way. That's what these people do.

Ted Bundy was also very intelligent, more intelligent than Jodi, and IIRC, had actually been to law school. But he still got run over in court because he could not put aside his own narcissism and evil to effectively argue his own case (plus, he was guilty as hell). I think this lawyer will be surprised (what?) at just how terribly Jodi will do. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if she asks for her lawyers back before the trial begins.

Even though Loni Coombs was kind of agreeing with this guy, she still pointed out that she tried this before because she wanted to introduce evidence (the letters) that her lawyers probably said absolutely not to. What makes anyone think it'll be different this time? She is probably trying to go out and get people to lie for her and say they saw abuse. She has no foresight that these people will all be subject to not only cross examination but pre trial interviewing, as well. Her lawyers know this which is why they don't interview them in the first place. They know it will not reveal what they want it to and will give Juan ammunition and leave the door open to him getting information that will be harmful to her case. It's just not worth it and allowing them to be interviewed is a legal death wish. Jodi does not understand this. She just has to have the final say, she just HAS to prove this abuse that never happened did happen.

 

[krkrjx]

Excellent post MeeBee.

One thing to consider: People tend to be more forgiving of women who kill men because so many in our society believe the man must have been responsible in some way for her "having to do what she did." I am not saying anyone will totally excuse JA's actions but let's face it--stereotypes still exist to the point where I believe that if TA had killed JA he would have been sentenced to fry long, long ago.

 

[MeeBee]

Excellent post MeeBee.

One thing to consider: People tend to be more forgiving of women who kill men because so many in our society believe the man must have been responsible in some way for her "having to do what she did." I am not saying anyone will totally excuse JA's actions but let's face it--stereotypes still exist to the point where I believe that if TA had killed JA he would have been sentenced to fry long, long ago.

I agree, I don't really think she'll get the DP, thought she deserves it. But people are saying that the reason Juan wants to go ahead with this retrial is due to ego and spotlight craving. I very much disagree. I don't think Juan is opposed to a plea in this case. It would certainly be much easier and allow him to move on to other cases. He's plead out before. I just think that the terms of a plea offered by Jodi were so disagreeable (LWP, endless appeals footed by the state, etc) that the only way to get what Jodi truly deserves is to go ahead with this phase, where in the end the judge will most certainly sentence her to LWOP if it comes down to that. I think this is necessary to get Jodi the highest possible punishment she can get, even if it's not actually the death penalty.

 

[Hatfield]

Yes, the abuse is part of her mitigation and getting people to testify to it (though it's untrue and she is essentially asking people to commit perjury for her, I don't think that will go over...her sister is very supportive of her but lying on the stand is another ball game...she doesn't understand not everyone sees lying in the same brazen sociopath way she does) will be allowed. But I do agree in that there are aspects of the guilt phase that she will probably try to argue and re-introduce again and that she will be surprised in what she can and cannot present in this phase. This is not a do-over. I also think that she does not realize how some of the stuff she is presenting will come off to a jury, coming from a convicted murderer. I think if she calls the Hughes' and berates them into trying to agree with the abuse and tries to go after other people it'll just look like a self serving murderer trying to coerce and bully witnesses rather than a lawyer arguing their case.

Murderers representing themselves has never gone well, because they are not lawyers. I saw a lawyer on YouTube talking about how intelligent Jodi is and how she ran the courtroom last time and had her way with Juan Martinez and people will be surprised how well she does. I was surprised to see this coming from another lawyer, another prosecutor no less. Usually layers understand and firmly believe that, even if defendants CAN defend themselves, they shouldn't. They need a lawyers to argue for them. Juan may get bogged down in minutae sometimes but he's a good lawyer. And while Jodi was able to get under his skin, in the end he won that battle handily by exposing her lies, easily. I can't believe that this guy thinks that he a seasoned and tested and very successful attorney, who's come up against some good lawyers himself, will meet his match in Jodi Arias. I'm sure she's very intelligent but she's no lawyer and she will let her narcissistic belief that she can do anything get in the way. That's what these people do.

Ted Bundy was also very intelligent, more intelligent than Jodi, and IIRC, had actually been to law school. But he still got run over in court because he could not put aside his own narcissism and evil to effectively argue his own case (plus, he was guilty as hell). I think this lawyer will be surprised (what?) at just how terribly Jodi will do. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if she asks for her lawyers back before the trial begins.

Even though Loni Coombs was kind of agreeing with this guy, she still pointed out that she tried this before because she wanted to introduce evidence (the letters) that her lawyers probably said absolutely not to. What makes anyone think it'll be different this time? She is probably trying to go out and get people to lie for her and say they saw abuse. She has no foresight that these people will all be subject to not only cross examination but pre trial interviewing, as well. Her lawyers know this which is why they don't interview them in the first place. They know it will not reveal what they want it to and will give Juan ammunition and leave the door open to him getting information that will be harmful to her case. It's just not worth it and allowing them to be interviewed is a legal death wish. Jodi does not understand this. She just has to have the final say, she just HAS to prove this abuse that never happened did happen.

Excellent Post. This pretty much hits the nail on the head of how it will probably all go down.

Even if JA gets people to testify for her then I think JA will be surprised that they dont answer quite the same way as she expected them to when on the stand in front of everyone. JA may make the mistake of throwing out some bias questions to which her own witnesses may not agree to.

It may make for some very interesting testimony and a very surprised defense attorney. LOL

 

[krkrjx]

Does JM need a plea deal in place in order to not continue pursuing the death penalty? Can he not just move to take DP off the table at this point and allow sentencing to happen without this retrial?

I do not think JM is grandstanding; I think he believes this case deserves the DP and intends to follow it through for that reason only. But my guess is that he could change his mind without agreement of the defense. I wish he would do that because I fear this being a retrial where jurors did not get to hear the entire case will muck things up later on even if they do vote for death.

 

[MeeBee]

Excellent Post. This pretty much hits the nail on the head of how it will probably all go down.

Even if JA gets people to testify for her then I think JA will be surprised that they dont answer quite the same way as she expected them to when on the stand in front of everyone. JA may make the mistake of throwing out some bias questions to which her own witnesses may not agree to.

It may make for some very interesting testimony and a very surprised defense attorney. LOL

Absolutely! Remember those post conviction interviews where she said her sister had seen the many, many bruises, as well, even though she had never mentioned that before, not even in the trial? That was her calling out to her sister to lie for her. She saw how supportive the sister was and played on the love she had for her, just like with MM, to try and get her to lie for her. That is what the PI is for, go interview my sister, she will tell you of the abuse. But without her magazines orchestrating this new lie will be much more difficult this time around. The sister has no idea what she needs to say or when this was supposed to have been or anything. She may have no problem vouching for Jodi on Facebook, but on the stand, being grilled by Juan, that is totally different and if she's caught lying, she done for. Calling the sister is a huge mistake. HUGE.

 

[MeeBee]

Does JM need a plea deal in place in order to not continue pursuing the death penalty? Can he not just move to take DP off the table at this point and allow sentencing to happen without this retrial?

I do not think JM is grandstanding; I think he believes this case deserves the DP and intends to follow it through for that reason only. But my guess is that he could change his mind without agreement of the defense. I wish he would do that because I fear this being a retrial where jurors did not get to hear the entire case will muck things up later on even if they do vote for death.

Maybe, I'm not sure. But, you're right, he probably thinks this case is and this murderer is deserving of the DP and is going for it. Arizona has the DP and this case is DP eligible. So I'm probably wrong in that he would rather be done with it. He's doing it because it's what she deserves. She may not get it, but she deserves it.

 

[Hez]

Why did the Judge get so emotional when the jury was unable to reach a verdict? We saw Arias in tears (of relief) but why did the Judge get all teary-eyed? I remember Judge Perry being absolutely poker-faced when/after the verdict was read. Was Judge Stephens upset?

Yeah, upset that she was just sentenced to spend more time in Jodi-land. :scared:

 

[Hatfield]

Does JM need a plea deal in place in order to not continue pursuing the death penalty? Can he not just move to take DP off the table at this point and allow sentencing to happen without this retrial?

I do not think JM is grandstanding; I think he believes this case deserves the DP and intends to follow it through for that reason only. But my guess is that he could change his mind without agreement of the defense. I wish he would do that because I fear this being a retrial where jurors did not get to hear the entire case will muck things up later on even if they do vote for death.

If I understand how things work, it is the DA that chose to seek the DP and Juan is just the attorney the state is using. The previous plea deals that were offerred by the defense was so outragiously good for the defendent that there was no way the DA was going to accept them.

I think it would be up to the DA to work with the defense to drop the DP and agree to a deal of LWOP. Which we know JA is never going to agree with so here we are. Unless the DA wants to consider a deal of life with chance of parole which I dont think DA will consider that. So here we are again. LOL

 

[Tuba]

If the convict does keep hammering on abuse (& it looks like that from here), it signifies that her position is an unacceptable non-sequitor. One, that, nevertheless, we know she endorses from her t.v. interview. If someone is abusive, I have the moral right to renew a finished relationship by traveling a thousand miles into the state where he lives and kill him.

 

[krkrjx]

So, if the DA decided to go for the Death Penalty and Martinez has no say in that--how is it that talking heads, etc., can accuse Martinez of grandstanding or looking for the spotlight?

Sounds more like anti-JM sentiment than anything real. I just wish people in general had common sense so they would not be so quick to believe everything they hear on HLN/CNN/FOXNEWS, etc.

It being said on TV does not automatically make it true but it takes good ole common sense to know that.

 

[MeeBee]

It really won't be that difficult. IF Jodi finds more than one person to testify to this abuse, this is pretty much how it'll go:

"If you saw this abuse, where were you the first time around?"

"D'uuuhhh..."

"Why had the defendant never mentioned you seeing this until after she had already been convicted?"

"D'uuuuhhhh"

"No further questions."